Majority
Headnote
Wharf — New York City.— This action is brought to obtain injunctive relief,- it being contended that the defendant has been guilty of a continuing trespass, and a continuing nuisance, by reason of the erection of the piers and the stone wall aforesaid, preventing the exercise by the plaintiffs of their alleged right to collect wharfage at West street, for that part of the same extending fifty-five feet and six inches southerly from Spring street. It is contended by counsel that the plaintiff’s have a right to maintain this* action, under the cases of Langdon v. Mayor, etc., 93 N. Y. 129 ; Williams v. Mayor, etc., 105 id. 429; 7 St. Rep. 529 , and Kingsland v. Mayor, etc., 110 N. Y. 569 ; 18 St. Rep. 701 . I am of the opinion, however, upon the foregoing statement of facts, that neither of these cases is an. authority in the plaintiffs’ favor in this action. Although, the right to collect wharfage in-front of the premises described in the water grant of February 20, 1804, was given to Lewis Lorton, by the agreement of March 1, 1804, Lorton covenanted that the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city of New York, and their successors, until West street should be made and formed, and as long afterwards as they should think it advisable to reserve and keep open the said public slip or basin, should use and take to themselves all the wharfage or cranage, etc., which should arise from the wharf or pier across the westerly end of said premises on' the easterly side of West street, and also from the said wharf or street to be called “West street,” so long as the same should be reserved and kept open as a public slip'or basin. In this case, as a matter of fact, while under the plan approved by the commissioners of the' sinking fund, West street has been widened, so that it is 250 feet in width, instead of seventy, and the slip has been extended by reason of the erection of the new piers, no access to the plaintiff’s premises on the easterly side of West street has been interfered with. There is a public street still in front of him, and also a public basin much more advantageous, as matter of fact, to his premises, than the old basin and the old street, which have been replaced by the improvements. In the cases before referred to, the right of the landowners fronting on West street to collect wharfage had been taken away without compensation having been made therefor. In this case, Lorton surrendered all his right to collect wharfage while the public street and slip in front óf his premises were kept open. I do not think that the agreement in question confines the city to maintaining the identical piers, bulkheads and structures which existed in front of Lorton’s premises, so long as they left him access to the river front, and maintained a slip as large or larger than the slip which existed when the agreement of March
Cases cited
- Langdon v. Mayor of New York 93 N. Y. 129 p. 146
- Kingsland v. Mayor of New York 110 N. Y. 569 p. 146